I'd like to play with a historical-minded group and suggest that it should be based upon CORE 0.8 MP, which has a better historical feel than vanilla HoI.
Andrew
Andrew
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
An important point overlooked with the proposed house rules:
It would make the game way too tech-centered. If you only allow x air-units, there is no way the SU could ever do anything against German air. Even worse with land units. I am not really in favour of any stacking rules.
It would make the game way too tech-centered. If you only allow x air-units, there is no way the SU could ever do anything against German air. Even worse with land units. I am not really in favour of any stacking rules.
Many posters have good points concerning more historical use of air power etc. What I realy object to the most is the wish to drastically change the house rules during an on-going campaign. Before the campaign started the suggested house rules were posted here. If a player did not like these rules, it was possible to simply not join the campaign, or convince the other players to add to or change the house rules before starting the campaign.
Limiting the max air units in a stack to 6, and in addition to this limiting the number of units of a specific type to 3 basically cuts the air stack to 1/4 of what it is today.
Limiting air units may be historical, but to limit the number of bombers to 3 would have an enormous effect. No sensible player would ever build a tactical or dive bomber. Air warfare would no longer be an important part of this game. I find the existing built-in stacking penalty (-2 efficiency per plane when exceeding 12 units) is enough.
Also, having stacking limits for air but not for sea/land is not very realistic/historical either (this seems to be one of the main motives behind the stacking limit for air). And if you have stacking limits for all branches (air, land, sea) you will quickly get a micromanagement hell for most major nations.
Even if I had liked the idea of imposing stacking limits, doing this 1.5 years into a campaign would severely penalize players (i.e. Germany) who have invested heavily in air. I think we should keep the current stacking limits for the current game, and discuss any changes to this rule for future games instead.
Limiting the max air units in a stack to 6, and in addition to this limiting the number of units of a specific type to 3 basically cuts the air stack to 1/4 of what it is today.
Limiting air units may be historical, but to limit the number of bombers to 3 would have an enormous effect. No sensible player would ever build a tactical or dive bomber. Air warfare would no longer be an important part of this game. I find the existing built-in stacking penalty (-2 efficiency per plane when exceeding 12 units) is enough.
Also, having stacking limits for air but not for sea/land is not very realistic/historical either (this seems to be one of the main motives behind the stacking limit for air). And if you have stacking limits for all branches (air, land, sea) you will quickly get a micromanagement hell for most major nations.
Even if I had liked the idea of imposing stacking limits, doing this 1.5 years into a campaign would severely penalize players (i.e. Germany) who have invested heavily in air. I think we should keep the current stacking limits for the current game, and discuss any changes to this rule for future games instead.
Why not? Do some tests, 2 tacs will remove all org (to 10) for a 5 division stack in a couple of attacks. Airpower can still disrupt any defensive stack by reducing org to 10, it will just take longer, and the airunits themselves will also lose org.MadViking said:
I disagree, look what juv did with his 4 basic navals. The only difference is that airpower will not be some fantasy weapon. Look at how you have used airpower so far in the game. It is about as far from reality as possible. Just because you cant use airpower like some magic deathray to ensure that you never will have to fight a landbattle doesnt mean that it isnt an important part of the game.
Since it has been proven time and time again that 12 tacs can kill the defensive ability of any stack in one or two attacks, and since you are the only one that has been making use of such attacks, in Spain, in Egypt, Gibraltar, France etc, I can understand that you like it...
First, land and naval already has good stacking rules. If you use too many landunits in a stack or too many naval units in a stack, it will hurt more than it does good. There is no such mechanism in place for airunits right now.
Second, if you read back you will note that I have also suggested naval and land stacking rules. After YOU specifically requested it. Interesting way to argue, first you demand special stacking rules for land and navy, then you try to attack the entire concept of stacking rules because it will be too much micromanagement to have stacking rules for everything. If you dont want stacking rules for navy and land then why did you specifically request it?
Third, the need for stacking rules comes from the gamey and ahistorical use of the airpower exploit. To my knowledge in the game so far, no one has done anything even remotely close to gamey or exploited navy or land units. On the contrary, I have only seen "normal" gameplay so far with navy and land.
Well, of cource you want to keep the current rules, after all you are the one who has built 85 airunits and almost no land units whatsoever since the start of the war. 105 infantry divisions and 85 airunits is it?
This game is borderline tanked already because of that.
Hortlund said:
Hm, if it is already that bad again (reminds me of earlier patches when we banned air-warfare totally) I might actually support Hortlunds view.
But I favour to keep the current rules for this, mainly to find out if there is a possible counter to massive air units.
Official notice from the Japanese Office of Propaganda:
I. Japan encourages the opressive powers of the Colonial Commonwealth and the Colonial striving United States to leave Asia and free the Asian peoples. The liberation movements in the Phillipines, India, Burma, Malaysia and in the Commonwealth puppet of Dutch Indonesia will grow strong and eventually remove the opressors if they are not leaving freely.
II. Japan demands that the United States of America cedes Guam to the Empire of Japan.
III. The struggle of bringing order to China will take additional time and effort and although the anarchistic Chinese armies seem to hold it is destined that Japan in the end achieves victory.
IV. Japan offers the Soviet Union a non-aggression treaty ensuring that the borders of Siberia and Manchuria remains as they are and that no aggression will be conducted between the nations of the Soviet Union and the Empire of Japan.
II. Japan demands that the United States of America cedes Guam to the Empire of Japan.
III. The struggle of bringing order to China will take additional time and effort and although the anarchistic Chinese armies seem to hold it is destined that Japan in the end achieves victory.
IV. Japan offers the Soviet Union a non-aggression treaty ensuring that the borders of Siberia and Manchuria remains as they are and that no aggression will be conducted between the nations of the Soviet Union and the Empire of Japan.
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Abe Nobuyuki
Tokyo, April 20 1941
Abe Nobuyuki
Tokyo, April 20 1941
Of course there is a counter to it. 12 improved or advanced fighters will stop any stack of bombers. I will not agree to that "killer stacks" of bombers are unstoppable. You just have to perform the right counter measures. AA and light air tech reserach will do the trick.
The issue at hand seem to be that one air unit = 100 airplanes according to the endless forum discussions that WE WILL NOT CONTINUE HERE! Sorry for even bringing it up! This presumption gives a nation an unrealistic high number of airplanes. If however each air unti represented 1 plane, or 10, or 24 or 48 it wouldnt be all that strange.
I am trying to do some umpiring in this entire discussion because it almost ruined a perfectly good campaign last session and if it did I would be very upset. No one is really wrong here, we just have a bunch of different opinions. If I'm not mistaken most people share Hortlunds opinion so far that air killer stacks is somewhat unrealistic and a nuisance but in no way destroyes the game. Only Hortlund finds the game totally meaningless to continue to play if unlimited air stacks are allowed. This leaves us with a few options:
1. Continue the dicussion and decide on a house rule regarding air stacks that will satisfy all involved.
2. Continue the campaign with the starting rules, Hortlund accepting this and doing his best to adapt to the "gamey" style of this campaign giving some ground until he fields a decent defensive airforce again.
3. Due to this unfortunate misunderstanding we, in good humour, decide that one shouldn't play a game one doesn't enjoy and we find a new premier for the UK. (Obviously this is in my opinion not a good alternative but I'm mentioning all options)
4. We quit the current campaign and start over again with a new discussion of house rules.
We can rule out the last option since there's nothing wrong with the current campaign except that the UK has taken a severe beating but that shouldnt stop the allies from attempting to reach Berlin before may 8th 1945 or so. Im sick and tired of starting HOI camapigns over and over becuase one or a few players doesnt like the development of events, mostly of his own doing. (I'm not saying this has hppened in this campaign). I will give a superior allied side the pleasure of invading Italy and fighting to death instead of stating: "The axis wont win a smashing victory, I give up!" If option 4 is decided on now I will not play with this game group as it is again! Players need more dedication and stamina than this! Talking about restarting a campaign before the USSR and the US is even in the war is folly so I forbid it! all in agreeance?
(I come from a 36 campaign where the Axis felt itself beaten in april 1940. The US player played 2,5 sessions in peace and got to start all over the minute he entered war. I just don't like that. BTW in this campaign the UK had the best fighters in the game and was never touched using stacks of 3, 6 and 9 of fighters around the globe preventing any axis bombing of his troops therefore I know its possible to stop axis bombers.)
My impression is that most players find nothing wrong with whats going onI would therefore think that option 2 is what most people would prefer. Then it's up to Hortlund himself to decide if he wants to make that an option 3 instead even if that would make me sad to see him leave after all the fun we had in the med. (On the virtual battlefield and not some secluded beach resort). Persoanlly I can go with any option except 4 as long as all continue to have a pleasant gaming experience together.
Ise!
It's your game. I understand its hard to take charge over a situation where you weren't present. You need to examine Russia and tell us of its situation. You need to be aware that Germany is very strong when it comes to air. You need to give some clarifications on the present house rules and you might have to take a decision regarding this discussion or at least decide who/how the decision should be taken. Through a vote or through a game master decision.
It's clear not everyone will be happy over how this decision goes but I hope we are all mature gamers that will accept it and move on without any sulking.
EDIT:
I love you post Aldo!
The issue at hand seem to be that one air unit = 100 airplanes according to the endless forum discussions that WE WILL NOT CONTINUE HERE! Sorry for even bringing it up! This presumption gives a nation an unrealistic high number of airplanes. If however each air unti represented 1 plane, or 10, or 24 or 48 it wouldnt be all that strange.
I am trying to do some umpiring in this entire discussion because it almost ruined a perfectly good campaign last session and if it did I would be very upset. No one is really wrong here, we just have a bunch of different opinions. If I'm not mistaken most people share Hortlunds opinion so far that air killer stacks is somewhat unrealistic and a nuisance but in no way destroyes the game. Only Hortlund finds the game totally meaningless to continue to play if unlimited air stacks are allowed. This leaves us with a few options:
1. Continue the dicussion and decide on a house rule regarding air stacks that will satisfy all involved.
2. Continue the campaign with the starting rules, Hortlund accepting this and doing his best to adapt to the "gamey" style of this campaign giving some ground until he fields a decent defensive airforce again.
3. Due to this unfortunate misunderstanding we, in good humour, decide that one shouldn't play a game one doesn't enjoy and we find a new premier for the UK. (Obviously this is in my opinion not a good alternative but I'm mentioning all options)
4. We quit the current campaign and start over again with a new discussion of house rules.
We can rule out the last option since there's nothing wrong with the current campaign except that the UK has taken a severe beating but that shouldnt stop the allies from attempting to reach Berlin before may 8th 1945 or so. Im sick and tired of starting HOI camapigns over and over becuase one or a few players doesnt like the development of events, mostly of his own doing. (I'm not saying this has hppened in this campaign). I will give a superior allied side the pleasure of invading Italy and fighting to death instead of stating: "The axis wont win a smashing victory, I give up!" If option 4 is decided on now I will not play with this game group as it is again! Players need more dedication and stamina than this! Talking about restarting a campaign before the USSR and the US is even in the war is folly so I forbid it! all in agreeance?
(I come from a 36 campaign where the Axis felt itself beaten in april 1940. The US player played 2,5 sessions in peace and got to start all over the minute he entered war. I just don't like that. BTW in this campaign the UK had the best fighters in the game and was never touched using stacks of 3, 6 and 9 of fighters around the globe preventing any axis bombing of his troops therefore I know its possible to stop axis bombers.)
My impression is that most players find nothing wrong with whats going onI would therefore think that option 2 is what most people would prefer. Then it's up to Hortlund himself to decide if he wants to make that an option 3 instead even if that would make me sad to see him leave after all the fun we had in the med. (On the virtual battlefield and not some secluded beach resort). Persoanlly I can go with any option except 4 as long as all continue to have a pleasant gaming experience together.
Ise!
It's your game. I understand its hard to take charge over a situation where you weren't present. You need to examine Russia and tell us of its situation. You need to be aware that Germany is very strong when it comes to air. You need to give some clarifications on the present house rules and you might have to take a decision regarding this discussion or at least decide who/how the decision should be taken. Through a vote or through a game master decision.
It's clear not everyone will be happy over how this decision goes but I hope we are all mature gamers that will accept it and move on without any sulking.
EDIT:
I love you post Aldo!
Isebrand said:
Now, now, now... Its not that bad! Some of these air units are built after purchasing orders been sent from Rome to Berlin. In exchange for future deliviers of resources from Il Duces glorious colonial empire in Africa Germany has offered to make German Air units available to defend the Mare Nostrum alongside the Regia Marina. These are not destined to any Crusade to the aim of the extermination of communism.
Important message
The poison attack on our beloved comrade and great leader failed. He is recovering quickly. As a shining example to the working masses he decided to only eat zwieback and drink tea. Every other resource will be put into the defence of the motherland.
However, our great leader would really like to know what date it is? And an update on the events he missed while being in delirium would also be great.
The poison attack on our beloved comrade and great leader failed. He is recovering quickly. As a shining example to the working masses he decided to only eat zwieback and drink tea. Every other resource will be put into the defence of the motherland.
However, our great leader would really like to know what date it is? And an update on the events he missed while being in delirium would also be great.
The Japan notice is dated today (i.e. latest date of last session). We expect an answer from Moscow on (IV) in the notice by the way.Isebrand said:
Edit: We might as well reveal that that date is April 20 1941 (a day that the Soviet Embassy in Tokyo celebrates the recovery of Comrade Stalin with a Proletarian cocktail party).
Last edited:
First
No one has ever said that there is no counter to the 85 German airunits. Of cource any player can spend some, half or all of his production capacity to build airplanes, just like the German player did in this game.
That is not the issue here
Like I have said countless of times, a game that is reduced to a battle of the fighter killerstacks is nothing but a waste of time for everyone involved. Therefore I refuse to spend the majority of my industry production to build fighters in some dweebish attempt to build my own killerstacks. This game is not supposed to be about who can build the biggest airunits fastest .
Even the German player himself said that the only reason he built that many units was because he feared that the UK and USSR players would. CLEARLY something can be understood from that.
Second
By design choise, the HoI airunit is supposed to symbolize 100 aircraft. If you call it something else, fine, but remember that all the factors were designed with this number in mind. To first build a ridiculous number of aircraft and then say that the number is not ridiculous because the airunits are actually symbolizing individual aircraft is just silly. So I agree that we should drop this part of the discussion.
Third
I will not speak for others, but it seems pretty clear from the responses so far in this thread that the majority of those who has posted here are in favor of option 1, not as you say 2.
No one has ever said that there is no counter to the 85 German airunits. Of cource any player can spend some, half or all of his production capacity to build airplanes, just like the German player did in this game.
That is not the issue here
Like I have said countless of times, a game that is reduced to a battle of the fighter killerstacks is nothing but a waste of time for everyone involved. Therefore I refuse to spend the majority of my industry production to build fighters in some dweebish attempt to build my own killerstacks. This game is not supposed to be about who can build the biggest airunits fastest .
Even the German player himself said that the only reason he built that many units was because he feared that the UK and USSR players would. CLEARLY something can be understood from that.
Second
By design choise, the HoI airunit is supposed to symbolize 100 aircraft. If you call it something else, fine, but remember that all the factors were designed with this number in mind. To first build a ridiculous number of aircraft and then say that the number is not ridiculous because the airunits are actually symbolizing individual aircraft is just silly. So I agree that we should drop this part of the discussion.
Third
I will not speak for others, but it seems pretty clear from the responses so far in this thread that the majority of those who has posted here are in favor of option 1, not as you say 2.
I think it is time to settle this issue. There have been valid arguments from both sides, but the one argument that beats all in my opinion is:
If we introduce a stacking rule for airplanes, we would have to abandon the current campaign and start a new one. Germany, in accordance with the houserules, put the resources into air-units. Changing houserules now would be unfair against Germany. It could be summarized "damn, Germany came up with a strategy we cannot beat, so let's just change the rules".
And I absolutely do not feel like starting over the campaign again. There will always be, in every game, a new game mechanic that someone will not like. One has to live with it.
BTW - would people be available to continue on Thursday? I guess it could be a problem for wolf?
If we introduce a stacking rule for airplanes, we would have to abandon the current campaign and start a new one. Germany, in accordance with the houserules, put the resources into air-units. Changing houserules now would be unfair against Germany. It could be summarized "damn, Germany came up with a strategy we cannot beat, so let's just change the rules".
And I absolutely do not feel like starting over the campaign again. There will always be, in every game, a new game mechanic that someone will not like. One has to live with it.
BTW - would people be available to continue on Thursday? I guess it could be a problem for wolf?
Last edited:
ULTIMATUM!
As a garantor of stability and peace the Sovjet Union issues the following ultimatum:
The Sovjet Union demands that Japan hands back Xianyang to our comrades in Communist China. This has to be done by June '41. Further on the Sovjet Union demands an end to the exploitation of the Chineses population. Therefore any further attacks on National China will lead to a state of war between the Sovjet Union and Japan.
If Japan fulfills the condition of this ultimatum the Sowjet Union could consider negotiations about a non-aggression pact. Part of these negotations will also be a partly withdrawal of Japanese forces from China to pre-war borders.
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Andrej Vyshinski
Vladiwostok, Divisional Command Post, April 20 1941
Andrej Vyshinski
Vladiwostok, Divisional Command Post, April 20 1941
Last edited:
I am in favor of Isebrand's and Juv's suggestion (continuing the game with the current rules). After this campaign is finished, we can return to the discussion of limiting stack sizes with new house rules.
To Hortlund:
I in no way feel compelled to explain my choice of which units I produce, but since you brought it up there are several very important reasons for the current German air strategy:
1) Germany has very low MP these days (building ground units quickly drains it)
2) Germany starts the 1939 scenario with inferior air tech (UK has improved fighters, Germany only basic), so I need to make it up with greater numbers.
3) Germany starts the scenario with inferior numbers of air divisions(UK+France have more fighters, the Soviets have significantly more fighters)
4) Germany starts with two different ministers that give a total of -20% time/cost to building tacs/dive bombers. In other words, they are cheap and can be produced quickly (if I had started making tanks with brigades they would take much longer to complete).
5) Germany starts with (compared to starting in 1936) very worthless tanks and artillery tech.
Honestly, what else would be sensible for the Germans to build during the first year of the game? Lets see:
A) Tanks: expensive, very poor quality, uses a fair amount of MP
B) Infantry or equivalent: drains up the limited MP very fast
C) Navy: Germans are hopelessly behind the Royal Navy in size/quality, and building ships won't win the war with the Soviets
I hope you are satisfied with this explanation. I generally decide on a strategy against what will help me win the game, and not what the nation I am playing historically built. What would you have said if I had started to mass-produce subs instead? Do you want house rules limiting each and every unit type so it falls within historical limits?
To Hortlund:
I in no way feel compelled to explain my choice of which units I produce, but since you brought it up there are several very important reasons for the current German air strategy:
1) Germany has very low MP these days (building ground units quickly drains it)
2) Germany starts the 1939 scenario with inferior air tech (UK has improved fighters, Germany only basic), so I need to make it up with greater numbers.
3) Germany starts the scenario with inferior numbers of air divisions(UK+France have more fighters, the Soviets have significantly more fighters)
4) Germany starts with two different ministers that give a total of -20% time/cost to building tacs/dive bombers. In other words, they are cheap and can be produced quickly (if I had started making tanks with brigades they would take much longer to complete).
5) Germany starts with (compared to starting in 1936) very worthless tanks and artillery tech.
Honestly, what else would be sensible for the Germans to build during the first year of the game? Lets see:
A) Tanks: expensive, very poor quality, uses a fair amount of MP
B) Infantry or equivalent: drains up the limited MP very fast
C) Navy: Germans are hopelessly behind the Royal Navy in size/quality, and building ships won't win the war with the Soviets
I hope you are satisfied with this explanation. I generally decide on a strategy against what will help me win the game, and not what the nation I am playing historically built. What would you have said if I had started to mass-produce subs instead? Do you want house rules limiting each and every unit type so it falls within historical limits?
Although this is probably the wrong time 
, I would like to propose a new house rule:
If Sovjet Union is at war with Japan, Japan can only join the Axis after Germany declared war on Sovjet Union. Otherwise Sovjet Union would not get lowered consumer goods. Or do people feel that this is how it should be?
, I would like to propose a new house rule:If Sovjet Union is at war with Japan, Japan can only join the Axis after Germany declared war on Sovjet Union. Otherwise Sovjet Union would not get lowered consumer goods. Or do people feel that this is how it should be?
MadViking said:
Good, because I neither asked for, nor am very interested in your explanations. I have seen how you play and that tells me enough.
Im quite sure you can come up with plenty of justifications for your 85 airunits or your killerstack tactics, good for you.
I have tried to explained how and why such tactics will ruin the game for everyone and the need for houserules to prevent such activities in the future. Apparently most agree that we need such houserules and that should maybe tell you something about your current tactics and choises.
Anyway, the desicion has been made to not alter any houserules for this game, so that is the end of that discussion.
I was about to say yes - but in such a case SU would be the aggressor and Germany only aiding a fellow fascist - not aggressively attacking THE MOTHERLAND.Isebrand said:Although this is probably the wrong time
If Sovjet Union is at war with Japan, Japan can only join the Axis after Germany declared war on Sovjet Union. Otherwise Sovjet Union would not get lowered consumer goods. Or do people feel that this is how it should be?
Isebrand said:Although this is probably the wrong time
If Sovjet Union is at war with Japan, Japan can only join the Axis after Germany declared war on Sovjet Union. Otherwise Sovjet Union would not get lowered consumer goods. Or do people feel that this is how it should be?
That sounds fair enough.
Neutral Commentator
Just a neutral commentator view from the side
1. The mighty Luftwaffe
I think you guys need to play your game to conclusion... It may be that the Luftwaffe has so far given Germany the advantage, but what will happen when Germany's limited ground forces meet the soviet and later US hordes ? It may well be that Germany's focus on air may prove her ultimate undoing
2. The eastern Gambit
If the soviet dows Japan and Japan later joins axis thus denying the soviets the benefits of reduced CG (not sure its the case actually... never tried it) than I would say that is fair......Leave them Japs alone, uncle Joe... the poor little dudes have enough pbs with the Yanks
If Italy or Japan dows soviets and later join the axis, creating that same problem, I would say thats an exploit.
FYI the 39 scenario is very tough on the axis.
Just a neutral commentator view from the side
1. The mighty Luftwaffe
I think you guys need to play your game to conclusion... It may be that the Luftwaffe has so far given Germany the advantage, but what will happen when Germany's limited ground forces meet the soviet and later US hordes ? It may well be that Germany's focus on air may prove her ultimate undoing
2. The eastern Gambit
If the soviet dows Japan and Japan later joins axis thus denying the soviets the benefits of reduced CG (not sure its the case actually... never tried it) than I would say that is fair......Leave them Japs alone, uncle Joe... the poor little dudes have enough pbs with the Yanks
If Italy or Japan dows soviets and later join the axis, creating that same problem, I would say thats an exploit.
FYI the 39 scenario is very tough on the axis.